Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 10 (1995)

Under the no-tolling rule, by contrast, two separate petitions for review will exist in the normal course. An order
would be final when issued, irrespective of the later filing of a
reconsideration motion, and the aggrieved party would seek
judicial review of the order within the specified period.
Upon denial of reconsideration, the petitioner would file a
separate petition to review that second final order. Because
it appears that only the no-tolling rule could give rise to
two separate petitions for review simultaneously before the
courts, which it is plain § 106(a)(6) contemplates, it would
seem that only that rule gives meaning to the section.

Although the consolidation provision does not mention tolling, see post, at 408 (Breyer, J., dissenting), tolling would
be the logical consequence if the statutory scheme provided
for the nonfinality of orders upon the filing of a reconsideration motion. Locomotive Engineers' conclusion as to tolling
followed as a necessary consequence from its conclusion
about finality. Finality is the antecedent question, and as to
that matter the consolidation provision speaks volumes. All
would agree that the provision envisions two petitions for
review. See post, at 408 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Because
only "final deportation order[s]" may be reviewed, 8 U. S. C.
§ 1105a(a)(1), it follows by necessity that the provision requires for its operation the existence of two separate final
orders, the petitions for review of which could be consolidated. The two orders cannot remain final and hence the
subject of separate petitions for review if the filing of the
reconsideration motion rendered the original order nonfinal.
It follows that the filing of the reconsideration motion does
not toll the time to petition for review. By speaking to finality, the consolidation provision does say quite a bit about
tolling.

Recognizing this problem, petitioner at oral argument
sought to give meaning to § 106(a)(6) by offering a different
version of what often might occur. Petitioner envisioned an
alien who petitioned for review of a final deportation order,